mistymjohnson Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 911 Operater Tells Boy Not to Play With Phone as His Mother Dies DETROIT — A 5-year-old boy called 911 to report that his mother had collapsed in their apartment, but an operator told him he should not be playing on the phone, and she died before help arrived. The family of Sherrill Turner, 46, does not know whether a swifter response could have saved her life, but relatives want to know why the operator apparently treated the call as if it were a prank. Police said the 911 response was under investigation. Turner's son, Robert, placed two calls to 911 after his mother collapsed Feb. 20 on the kitchen floor. During one of the calls, an operator said: "You shouldn't be playing on the phone." In a tape of the call, parts of which were broadcast by Detroit-area television stations, the operator said: "Now put her on the phone before I send the police out there to knock on the door and you gonna be in trouble." In an audio of the tape played on TV, some of what the boy says is unintelligible. Delaina Patterson, the eldest of Turner's 10 children, said police did not arrive until three hours later. She said only Robert and his mother were home at the time. - The Rest Of The Story - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 OMFG. You teach a five-year old to do the right thing. He maintains his cool in a situation that would cause most adults to flip out. Then he gets admonished by the people who are supposed to help him, and watches his mother die. I hate this world sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dks1240 Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 that is horrible! wow, that story just blew me away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistymjohnson Posted April 8, 2006 Author Share Posted April 8, 2006 I am a little confused as to WHY the operator is still working!!!!!!!!!?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1311 Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 I saw that on the news the other day and got so pissed I couldn't see straight. That ***** 911 operator ought to be locked up. That poor kid.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 brightened my day. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Lamb Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 You just cant win sometimes. Poor kid had to go through all of that at once. It's really shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 WV has a law that covers law enforcement/dispatchers/fire & emt called "Failure to Act." It's actually a criminal offense that carries jail time. Hopefully Michigan has a similar law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistymjohnson Posted April 8, 2006 Author Share Posted April 8, 2006 I hope so... I mean, I know that I have not personally heard the taped phone call... But from what I understand of 911 dispatchers (and I asked JUST to make sure before I posted this)... But even if they think it is a prank, they must send someone to check it out - In less than three hours! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jofizz Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Wow, that is terrible. I can't believe this world sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 I hope so... I mean, I know that I have not personally heard the taped phone call... But from what I understand of 911 dispatchers (and I asked JUST to make sure before I posted this)... But even if they think it is a prank, they must send someone to check it out - In less than three hours! Done it many times. It's called a "welfare check." They frequently turn out to be bunk; but you can NEVER assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumrunner6900 Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 WV has a law that covers law enforcement/dispatchers/fire & emt called "Failure to Act." It's actually a criminal offense that carries jail time. Hopefully Michigan has a similar law. In VA, that is all part of "Negligence"...failure to act and breach of duty...being in EMS myself, the national curriculum teaches us this, so I'm pretty sure all states have a law about that.... This is pretty bad....sometimes in the CAD systems that are used, there could be notes about a certain residence. Maybe there is a history of prank calls from there. Either way, they should've sent someone until proven otherwise. It is easier to turn someone around then put up with what is gonna (or should) happen to this dispatcher and department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 prayers to the kido...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 i have 2 kids, so i know how bad this would suck for the kid especially....is it wrong to wish death on the operator? or maybe herpes......herpes are forever:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Jeez...that is a horrible story. I hope the 911 operator gets charged with manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Jeez...that is a horrible story. I hope the 911 operator gets charged with manslaughter. agreed.......100% but unfortunately if their laws are as lame as VA laws, she won't even lose her job:rolleyes: it's so sad and sick that people can do this with no consequence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Yeah i heard she allready has the dispatchers union defending her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Calm down, it has not been verified as to whether the delay caused the death. If it has, a suitable punishmented will be delivered, not to mention the fact that the operator has to live with the shame of the whole affair. This is an isolated incident, and as terrible as it may be, comes with with the failings of being human. Lets reserve judgement until all the facts come in, no need to get all reactionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Calm down, it has not been verified as to whether the delay caused the death. If it has, a suitable punishmented will be delivered, not to mention the fact that the operator has to live with the shame of the whole affair. This is an isolated incident, and as terrible as it may be, comes with with the failings of being human. Lets reserve judgement until all the facts come in, no need to get all reactionary. the problem is, nobody will ever know for sure if she could have been saved.......all scenarios aside, it is the dispatchers job to send police and/or fire and emts when they get a call like that. whether her opinion was that it was fake or not, it isn't her job to determine, it is her job to dispatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 the problem is, nobody will ever know for sure if she could have been saved.......all scenarios aside, it is the dispatchers job to send police and/or fire and emts when they get a call like that. whether her opinion was that it was fake or not, it isn't her job to determine, it is her job to dispatch Find me the dispatchers code of conduct, or regulations. And unless you can DETERMINE whether she would have been saved, there is no argument to be had. Some are calling for her head, but we need proof, more than a mere piece of shock journalism. Person A = dead, therefore person B = responsible? It is a sad story, but as I said, wait until all the facts come in first. If this prompter was in the wrong, I will be calling for her resignation as well, but until we have evidence, a timeline of events, and more witnesses, we are all jumping the gun here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 It doesn't matter if she could have been saved. The dispatcher failed to act. You do not have the discretion to determine what's legit and what's not without investigation. Trust me, I've gone on some stupid ass calls. But you have to investigate them all. Especially, "Help my mommy's on the floor and won't wake up." :doh: Negligent at best. Criminally so at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboySlayer Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Find me the dispatchers code of conduct, or regulations. And unless you can DETERMINE whether she would have been saved, there is no argument to be had. Some are calling for her head, but we need proof, more than a mere piece of shock journalism. Person A = dead, therefore person B = responsible? It is a sad story, but as I said, wait until all the facts come in first. If this prompter was in the wrong, I will be calling for her resignation as well, but until we have evidence, a timeline of events, and more witnesses, we are all jumping the gun here. call me crazy, but i don't think determining if she still woulda died has anything to do with the dispatcher's negligence. even if the woman had lived, the dispatcher was still putting a life at risk for blowing the kid off just because she thought it was bull **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 It doesn't matter if she could have been saved. The dispatcher failed to act. You do not have the discretion to determine what's legit and what's not without investigation. Trust me, I've gone on some stupid ass calls. But you have to investigate them all. Especially, "Help my mommy's on the floor and won't wake up." :doh: Negligent at best. Criminally so at worst. Do you really have to investigate them all? No exceptions? Show me a code for dispatcher's, a set of regulations, I am totally prepared to say I am wrong if this person was acting against the rules. Because outside of that, you are criticizing her judgement call, that unless you can give me the phone records that show the boy's tone and exact words, as well as hers, would be a little premature to criticize, would you not say? As I said, take a deep breath and freaking wait for the facts to pile up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboySlayer Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Do you really have to investigate them all? No exceptions? Show me a code for dispatcher's, a set of regulations, I am totally prepared to say I am wrong if this person was acting against the rules. Because outside of that, you are criticizing her judgement call, that unless you can give me the phone records that show the boy's tone and exact words, as well as hers, would be a little premature to criticize, would you not say? As I said, take a deep breath and freaking wait for the facts to pile up. my friend was an emt and said he got dispatched to a womans house over a papercut once....if its true, they really do check it all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 my friend was an emt and said he got dispatched to a womans house over a papercut once....if its true, they really do check it all Doh, that did it... but just ask him if its true and that you have to investigate everything. For my honor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.